Re: Time is constant ?

I thought the question would be easy to understand. Because of time dilation , time is thought to be a variant. However I believe it is the reference frame that is a variant and not the rate of time. My reasoning for this, if mass one was equal to mass two and they both were an equal distance away from the sun orbiting the Sun at the same speed, time would be synchronous for mass one and mass two.

Re: Time is constant ?

handmade » 09 Apr 2017, 00:32 wrote:I thought the question would be easy to understand. Because of time dilation , time is thought to be a variant. However I believe it is the reference frame that is a variant and not the rate of time. My reasoning for this, if mass one was equal to mass two and they both were an equal distance away from the sun orbiting the Sun at the same speed, time would be synchronous for mass one and mass two.

No, you are wrong on both counts, or at least very imprecise. Time is relative, not a variant. It means different inertial frames have different definitions of time, simultaneity, energy, momentum, etc.

Two masses orbiting the Sun in equivalent orbits can have clocks that are synchronized in the Sun-centered inertial frame. But they are each in a different inertial frame and they cannot synchronize their clocks to each other in their own separate inertial frames. Neither can their clock be synchronized to a theoretical "paper clock" at the center of the Sun.

We do not call such inertial frames "variants", they are just different inertial frames.

Re: Time is constant ?

BurtJordaan» 10 Apr 2017, 09:28 wrote:No, you are wrong on both counts, or at least very imprecise. Time is relative, not a variant. It means different inertial frames have different definitions of time, simultaneity, energy, momentum, etc.

Two masses orbiting the Sun in equivalent orbits can have clocks that are synchronized in the Sun-centered inertial frame. But they are each in a different inertial frame and they cannot synchronize their clocks to each other in their own separate inertial frames. Neither can their clock be synchronized to a theoretical "paper clock" at the center of the Sun.

We do not call such inertial frames "variants", they are just different inertial frames.

Interesting, thanks for the reply. What if we measured time incorrectly to begin with? The measured rate of time in each inertia reference frame is measured by the Caesium output/transitions, but in reality doesn't entropy change at the speed of the c and it is the incoming ''light'' that changes entropy? output being the end product of input?

Re: Time is constant ?

handmade » 10 Apr 2017, 09:35 wrote:... but in reality doesn't entropy change at the speed of the c and it is the incoming ''light'' that changes entropy?

No, entropy does not change at "the speed of c". And it is not light that changes the entropy of a system. I still don't understand what you are really asking. If you want to chat on physics, you must be prepared to formulate precise statements or questions.

Re: Time is constant ?

handmade » 10 Apr 2017, 09:35 wrote:... but in reality doesn't entropy change at the speed of the c and it is the incoming ''light'' that changes entropy?

No, entropy does not change at "the speed of c". And it is not light that changes the entropy of a system. I still don't understand what you are really asking. If you want to chat on physics, you must be prepared to formulate precise statements or questions.

Ok, to put it in simplified form, I do not think time dilation is what we think it is or works like we think it does. I am not saying there is not a measured dilation, I am saying we have the wrong interpretation of the information.

I am not sure why you say entropy does not change at the rate of c. Most certainty photons ''bombard'' matter at c changing the state of matter in a thermodynamic way etc.

Surely what we measure of the caesium is a rate of entropy and not a rate of time?

If all observers measured time using Planck time (tp) then surely time would be simultaneous because of the constant of c/dx?

Added - Considering the above question, the immediate future of the state of matter, is only a Planck length or Planck time unit away from the present state of matter. This logical statement and use of the above showing why we have the wrong interpretation and time can not slow down , re-enforcing Newtons notion of Absolute time.

added- Further more , it is impossible to displace 0 without leaving a past geometrical position or chronological position , no matter how small of an increment or rate we use.

added- Further more in the twin paradox , it is impossible for the travelling twin to have a shorter time line and return to the present of the ground state twin with a longer time line. Both twins would have to have simultaneous time lines to return to each other. The travelling twin could not be in AD1999 and the ground state twin in AD2000 for the travelling twin to return in AD2000.

added- further more, the observable information change of the Universe is updated in our minds at c. Each new Quanta wave packet our eyes detect retaining new information of the Universe.

Last edited by handmade on April 10th, 2017, 5:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Time is constant ?

handmade » 10 Apr 2017, 10:12 wrote:Ok, to put it in simplified form, I do not think time dilation is what we think it is or works like we think it does. I am not saying there is not a measured dilation, I am saying we have the wrong interpretation of the information.

This may be more suited to the Philosophy part of SCPCF (PCF).

I am not sure why you say entropy does not change at the rate of c. Most certainty photons ''bombard'' matter at c changing the state of matter in a thermodynamic way etc.

The Sun bombards Earth with radiation energy and the Sun's entropy goes up and the Earth's entropy goes down. When Earth performs work with that energy, its entropy increases. It also radiates, so its entropy increase. But the rate of change has to do with energy flux, not the speed of photons.

Surely what we measure of the caesium is a rate of entropy and not a rate of time?

Yes, time is local and we do not measure the "rate of time": it is always one second per second. But we have defined the local second to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the transitions between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium-133 atoms. Then we measure the elapsed time between local events using those seconds.

Since we also pump energy into the cesium clock, what comes out is not a measure of the rate of change of entropy of the clock.

Before we get to your 'added questions', let us first get the above straight.

Re: Time is constant ?

handmade » 10 Apr 2017, 10:12 wrote:Ok, to put it in simplified form, I do not think time dilation is what we think it is or works like we think it does. I am not saying there is not a measured dilation, I am saying we have the wrong interpretation of the information.

This may be more suited to the Philosophy part of SCPCF (PCF).

I am not sure why you say entropy does not change at the rate of c. Most certainty photons ''bombard'' matter at c changing the state of matter in a thermodynamic way etc.

The Sun bombards Earth with radiation energy and the Sun's entropy goes up and the Earth's entropy goes down. When Earth performs work woth that energy, its entropy increases. It also radiates, so its entropy increase. But the rate of change has to do with energy flux, not the speed of photons.

Surely what we measure of the caesium is a rate of entropy and not a rate of time?

Yes, time is local and we do not measure the "rate of time": it is always one second per second. But we have defined the local second to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the transitions between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium-133 atoms. Then we measure the elapsed time between local events using those seconds.

Since we also pump energy into the cesium clock, what comes out is not a measure of the rate of change of entropy of the clock.

Before we get to your 'added questions', let us first get the above straight.

I do not believe it is philosophy, using Planck, Newton and Einstein is most certainty Physics. It is not a new theory either or a speculation, it is present day science widely available on the internet.

To address your post, firstly I am well aware and understand the Caesium cycles, I understand the notion of time dilation and contracted space (Lorentz).

However repeating this will not solve the issue .

You say '' it is always one second per second.''

One second passed by, continuous.

Please comment on the added before I continue, In short I am saying Newton was correct about absolute time.

The Sun bombards Earth with radiation energy and the Sun's entropy goes up and the Earth's entropy goes down. When Earth performs work with that energy, its entropy increases. It also radiates, so its entropy increase. But the rate of change has to do with energy flux, not the speed of photons.

Re: Time is constant ?

BurtJordaan » April 10th, 2017, 4:21 am wrote:Nope, please agree to what I have replied as correct, or discuss it further. Only then may we possibly continue with the barrage of 'added assertions'.

Which BTW, hints that is is not mainstream physics that you are interested in, but a return to absolute time. This will make your thread unsuitable for the Physics Sub-forum...

I was discussing it further. I assume you know the subject and especially with being a Mod, so I am showing you respect and assuming you are capable of a good discussion. Please show mutual respect in that I have self studied for several years and understand time dilation , assume I know what I am talking about. Yes I agree you observe a change in the rate of time when using the Caesium cycles to measure time. Ok ?

So now please answer this question , do you agree that an object in motion has an immediate future geometrical position ahead of it and will leave an immediate past geometrical position behind it?

What is the ''speed'' of time passing when considering the above ?

P.s I am not attacking mainstream, Newton is still mainstream with lots of notions, if his absolute time was proven to be correct, it is no big thing really, he already is mainstream and the notion already exists.

Re: Time is constant ?

handmade » 10 Apr 2017, 11:28 wrote:Please show mutual respect in that I have self studied for several years and understand time dilation , assume I know what I am talking about.

Yes I agree you observe a change in the rate of time when using the Caesium cycles to measure time. Ok ?

I'm happy to assume that you know what you are talking about, but when you make a loose statement like the one before the "OK?", then I don't know what you are talking about. Time does not have rate - we measure rates of change of other things against time, as so many 'something' that happened in a time interval as determined by cesium (or ceasium if you like) time. Or maybe you are asking about relative time, i.e. the time interval that one observer measures compared to the time interval that another observer measures, but there is no way to tell from your statement.

So it is not OK!

So now please answer this question , do you agree that an object in motion has an immediate future geometrical position ahead of it and will leave an immediate past geometrical position behind it?

Unless you define 'motion' relative so some specified reference frame, this is also an non-answerable question.

P.s I am not attacking mainstream, Newton is still mainstream with lots of notions, if his absolute time was proven to be correct, it is no big thing really, he already is mainstream and the notion already exists.

Newton's theory is only mainstream if we are discussing the history of science, or when clearly stated that the relativistic effects are negligibly small (and define the scenario so that they are, e.g. low relative speeds and negligible spacetime curvature).

Re: Time is constant ?

handmade » 10 Apr 2017, 10:12 wrote:Ok, to put it in simplified form, I do not think time dilation is what we think it is or works like we think it does. I am not saying there is not a measured dilation, I am saying we have the wrong interpretation of the information.

This may be more suited to the Philosophy part of SCPCF (PCF).

It is all very interesting. I am enjoying your conversation. If not out of order, may I please insert a question? Are you saying that once we start interpreting what science shows us, we have moved into philosophy? I see that as possible since philosophy is opinions. But what does that do to scientific investigations? I am missing something. Thanks.

Re: Time is constant ?

vivian maxine » 10 Apr 2017, 15:05 wrote:Are you saying that once we start interpreting what science shows us, we have moved into philosophy? I see that as possible since philosophy is opinions. But what does that do to scientific investigations?

To some degree, yes. Physics is about many things: making predictions of what the results of observations would be. Or about making post-dictions by showing how the best prevailing (applicable) theory could have predicted observations of the past. Or when observations falsifies the best prevailing theory, to develop a theory that is consistent with observations. Plus obviously a few more things...

There are often more than one way that observations may be interpreted. IMO, the test is then whether each interpretation is compatible with all the exiting data, possibly coming from many different types of observation. If all are equivalent up to this point, then certain interpretations may fit the problem at hand better than others. If this also cannot discriminate, the simplest interpretation is usually favored.

Where the science stops and the philosophy starts, is perhaps also a matter of interpretation... ;)

Re: Time is constant ?

Hmmmm. Could this be why we so often see a poster told "If you want to talk about that (or some such words), go to Philosophy and start a new thread. " Seems to me that the fairness of that is debatable but I make a lousy debater. So, thank you for confirming.

Re: Time is constant ?

handmade » 10 Apr 2017, 11:28 wrote:Please show mutual respect in that I have self studied for several years and understand time dilation , assume I know what I am talking about.

Yes I agree you observe a change in the rate of time when using the Caesium cycles to measure time. Ok ?

I'm happy to assume that you know what you are talking about, but when you make a loose statement like the one before the "OK?", then I don't know what you are talking about. Time does not have rate - we measure rates of change of other things against time, as so many 'something' that happened in a time interval as determined by cesium (or ceasium if you like) time. Or maybe you are asking about relative time, i.e. the time interval that one observer measures compared to the time interval that another observer measures, but there is no way to tell from your statement.

So it is not OK!

So now please answer this question , do you agree that an object in motion has an immediate future geometrical position ahead of it and will leave an immediate past geometrical position behind it?

Unless you define 'motion' relative so some specified reference frame, this is also an non-answerable question.

P.s I am not attacking mainstream, Newton is still mainstream with lots of notions, if his absolute time was proven to be correct, it is no big thing really, he already is mainstream and the notion already exists.

Newton's theory is only mainstream if we are discussing the history of science, or when clearly stated that the relativistic effects are negligibly small (and define the scenario so that they are, e.g. low relative speeds and negligible spacetime curvature).

Thank you for your reply, I am not use to answers from mods as good as your answers, you seem above average on ''smartness'' for a mod. Very different to what I am use to on the internet, you do a good job sir.

You say ,

Time does not have rate - we measure rates of change of other things against time, as so many 'something' that happened in a time interval as determined by cesium (or ceasium if you like) time. Or maybe you are asking about relative time, i.e. the time interval that one observer measures compared to the time interval that another observer measures, but there is no way to tell from your statement.

I am confused, are you saying that real time has no rate and therefore no dilation?

But relative time dilates.

I have never come across an answer like this before, you seem to understand the difference in time and relative time, I can tell you now there is very few on the internet who understand that and normal replies say there is a time dilation and time slows down, but they do not explain that we measure rates of change of other things against time.

I will address the other in your post soon, not long awoke.

Unless you define 'motion' relative so some specified reference frame, this is also an non-answerable question.

The motion is relative to the observer or yourself if you like or 3 points of reference , an object in motion relative to an observer will leave a past geometrical position as it enters a new future geometrical position.

Yes?Newton's theory is only mainstream if we are discussing the history of science, or when clearly stated that the relativistic effects are negligibly small (and define the scenario so that they are, e.g. low relative speeds and negligible spacetime curvature).

What if knowledge from history , i.e Newtons absolute time, becomes the new future information? The only way to know, is to discuss the information regardless of it's place in ''time''.

I have looked at both sides of the fence to conclude Newton was correct about time. Planck, re-enforcing Newtons ideas.

I believe I can show no actual time dilation and prove that to be the inaccuracy of the clock.

I think we can assume that relativistic time occupies absolute time. Absolute time being (tp) or c/dx, a constant.

i.e. the time interval that one observer measures compared to the time interval that another observer measures, but there is no way to tell from your statement.

The time interval that one observer measures compared to the time interval that another observer measures is much longer and a slower rate than (tp). (tp) being a constant invariant for all observers because c is constant.

If Newton had considered using Planck time , Newton would be correct and all observers would measure the increment of time passed to be synchronous. Fractional 0 has no space for contraction or dilation between increments of measurement.

Twin one would experience measuring the rate of time increments passed to be 1(tp) per 1(tp) passed.

Twin two would measure the exact same increments passed at the exact same rate, providing they were synchronous in measurement before departure.

Premise: It is impossible to measure a value of time at any rate, without the measurement being greater than 0 creating an immediate past.

Re: Time is constant ?

Thanks for the accolades, Handmade. The idea is to make the SPCF a useful place for people to come to when they want to chat about science and learn something about the topics that they are interested in.

However, as you may have noticed, I have moved your topic to Personal Theories, because it is now clear that what you have in mind is getting feedback on non-mainstream physics ideas. To keep things uncluttered for people interested in mainstream physics, we reserve the right to shift non-mainstream propositions to the section created for it. There the rules are more relaxed and most ideas go, as long as it is civilized and well motivated.

A little advice on quoting in your replies. It is not good to quote the whole of a long post and then to quote bits and pieces in a different color for your response. I normally just leave the first bit that I want to respond to in the original quote tags, which identifies the post that you reply to. After that I use just the Quote tags of the editor and copy and paste the text I want to specifically respond to in there. This creates a 'clean look and feel' for your reply. You can get the text from underneath the editor, or sometimes I just open another tab with the post visible.

Re: Time is constant ?

BurtJordaan » April 11th, 2017, 5:14 am wrote:Thanks for the accolades, Handmade. The idea is to make the SPCF a useful place for people to come to when they want to chat about science and learn something about the topics that they are interested in.

However, as you may have noticed, I have moved your topic to Personal Theories, because it is now clear that what you have in mind is getting feedback on non-mainstream physics ideas. To keep things uncluttered for people interested in mainstream physics, we reserve the right to shift non-mainstream propositions to the section created for it. There the rules are more relaxed and most ideas go, as long as it is civilized and well motivated.

A little advice on quoting in your replies. It is not good to quote the whole of a long post and then to quote bits and pieces in a different color for your response. I normally just leave the first bit that I want to respond to in the original quote tags, which identifies the post that you reply to. After that I use just the Quote tags of the editor and copy and paste the text I want to specifically respond to in there. This creates a 'clean look and feel' for your reply. You can get the text from underneath the editor, or sometimes I just open another tab with the post visible.

I will respond to your questions in a separate post.

Thank you for your well worded reply and I understand why it is necessarily for you too move the post. I look forward to hopefully some great discussion on this forum.

Re: Time is constant ?

Hang around, Handmade. We have a wealth of such mods here. I'm earning my degree from them. Not sure what you call a degree earned on a chat forum but I've certainly learned a lot here. Blessings on them all.

Re: Time is constant ?

There are two aspects to time dilation. Firstly, the time in every inertial frame flows the same - time passes at one second per second. But for different inertial frames in relative motion, the observable time of the other frames seems to be 'running slower'. This is relative time dilation, and has to do with the relativity of simultaneity.

Then there is 'differential time dilation' or 'differential aging' between non-inertial frames, or between inertial frames compared to non-inertial frames. Under certain conditions, such differential aging can be observed and absolutely determined. In essence the difference in spacetime path lengths causes accelerated clocks (even momentarily) to record less elapsed time than purely inertial clocks between the same two events. It still does not mean that some clocks tick slower than others, at least not in a gravity-free environment.

The motion is relative to the observer or yourself if you like or 3 points of reference , an object in motion relative to an observer will leave a past geometrical position as it enters a new future geometrical position.Yes?

If by geometrical you mean a spatial (x,y,z) position, yes. But take note that it is only in the reference frame. In the moving frame, there is no new spatial position taken up, just a new spacetime position.

I have looked at both sides of the fence to conclude Newton was correct about time. Planck, re-enforcing Newtons ideas.

Have you read about Quantum Field Theory (QFT)? In its modern versions it completely integrates special relativity and quantum physics and has proved successful in every test that could be dreamed up. So you will have tough time convincing anybody that we should turn the clock back by a century, go back to Newton's theory and wait for your theory to be proven. ;)

In any case, Newton's theory has been proved inadequate for high relative speeds, so what would be the point?

Re: Time is constant ?

me:The motion is relative to the observer or yourself if you like or 3 points of reference , an object in motion relative to an observer will leave a past geometrical position as it enters a new future geometrical position.Yes?

you:If by geometrical you mean a spatial (x,y,z) position, yes. But take note that it is only in the reference frame. In the moving frame, there is no new spatial position taken up, just a new spacetime position.

Yes I mean XYZ or Minkowski space-time. If you consider your yes answer you have just wholesomely agreed with me and my speculation about time and why Newton was correct about absolute time. Changing the question slightly looking for another yes agreement, Do you agree that any measurement of time no matter how small of an increment or what rate is used, leaves an immediate past?

Consider your previous yes answer and why that is a yes.

In any case, Newton's theory has been proved inadequate for high relative speeds, so what would be the point?

The point is Einstein would be incorrect, time would be measured more accurately, time travel would certainly be sci-fi, the twin paradox would not be a paradox etc, there is many things that would need reconsideration.

If we discuss the twin paradox, twin 2 can not age any different to twin 1 if the rate of time for both twins leaves an immediate past .

Re: Time is constant ?

In essence the difference in spacetime path lengths causes accelerated clocks (even momentarily) to record less elapsed time than purely inertial clocks between the same two events.

So are you saying the age difference occurs only during the acceleration phase for however long that lasts? So each frame is seeing the other's relative time going slower. It's like they each have a bank account of time to which more and more virtual time savings are being deposited. That time remains virtual until one or the other withdraws the virtual time savings by accelerating and all that virtual time saving suddenly becomes real for the accelerator and evaporates for the other guy? Is this correct or am I missing a subtlety or two?

Re: Time is constant ?

In essence the difference in spacetime path lengths causes accelerated clocks (even momentarily) to record less elapsed time than purely inertial clocks between the same two events.

So are you saying the age difference occurs only during the acceleration phase for however long that lasts? So each frame is seeing the other's relative time going slower. It's like they each have a bank account of time to which more and more virtual time savings are being deposited. That time remains virtual until one or the other withdraws the virtual time savings by accelerating and all that virtual time saving suddenly becomes real for the accelerator and evaporates for the other guy? Is this correct or am I missing a subtlety or two?

I know your question is not directed at me, however acceleration can not change the rate of time if using a Planck scale of time. it doe's not matter how fast you accelerate away from ''now=0'', you can't pass ''go'' without leaving an immediate past.

In thought please try to expand 0, any ''lines'' ahead of 0 have an equal past line of time elapsed.

1.s<<<<<0>>>>>1.s

1cm<<<<<0>>>>>1cm

< = past

>=future

added - it helps to place an object on a mirror that is lying ''flat'', try to move the object away from the mirror surface without moving the reflection, leaving an immediate past, try at any rate. This is to show that time can be measured at any rate, but it will not affect the rate of time elapsed.Twin 2 can not return to the ''now'' of twin 1 if the time elapsed for both twins was not synchronous.

i.e If twin 2 returns to twin 1 within a second of twins 1 measurement with only a 3/4 second measured, both twins can agree there clocks are not synchronous although the time elapsed they were apart was synchronous.Twin 1 and twin 2's time being mirrored and synchronous as in my example of the mirror. Imagine twin 1 to be the reflection of twin 2.

Re: Time is constant ?

handmade » 15 Apr 2017, 13:34 wrote:Yes I mean XYZ or Minkowski space-time. If you consider your yes answer you have just wholesomely agreed with me and my speculation about time and why Newton was correct about absolute time.

I disagree. It indicates a misconception on your part about the differences between Newton's and Einstein's theories.

Re: Time is constant ?

ralfcis » 15 Apr 2017, 15:58 wrote:So are you saying the age difference occurs only during the acceleration phase for however long that lasts? ... Is this correct or am I missing a subtlety or two?

No, I think you have missed the whole point. Acceleration causes the structure of spacetime of the accelerated object to change relative to the structure of spacetime of the unaccelerated (inertial) object. The difference in spacetime structure increases while the acceleration lasts and then stays at the same difference. The difference in spacetime structure causes a difference in aging (i.e. elapsed proper time) between the two objects, until the spacetime structure of the objects are restored to be the same again.

Re: Time is constant ?

I'm not trying to be thick but I don't know what that means unless it means the same thing I've been saying about aging difference only occurs between the time a change in relative velocity is made and that change propagates to the inertial participant to re-establish a new relative velocity between the two. But you've said no to that so I really don't know what a "change to the structure of spacetime" means.

Re: Time is constant ?

Accelerated reference frames, although part of Special Relativity, are not as simple as what purely inertial frames are. That's why they are not always discussed in beginner's texts. It brings the hyperbolic nature of spacetime sharply into focus.

But as you know, in the skewed spacetime axes of Minkowski spacetime diagrams, one can already see the hyperbolic nature of spacetime. Acceleration causes the 'skewness' of the axes of different inertial frames to increase or decrease. This essentially what I meant by a "change to the structure of spacetime".

It is getting a little advanced for the current thread, so if you want, we can open a new thread under physics for that.

Re: Time is constant ?

I had thought once I got to the bottom of the algebra, that would be it for S.R. But over the past week I see that was just a false bottom, real relativistic math is a whole 'nother world pf which I know nothing about. Too bad because I guess all the answers are hidden there. Maybe in a few months after I finish ralfativity mkII (which may turn out to be a waste of time).

Re: Time is constant ?

handmade » 15 Apr 2017, 13:34 wrote:Yes I mean XYZ or Minkowski space-time. If you consider your yes answer you have just wholesomely agreed with me and my speculation about time and why Newton was correct about absolute time.

I disagree. It indicates a misconception on your part about the differences between Newton's and Einstein's theories.

There is no misconception on my part. Your previous yes answer indicates agreement to the second question also, although you have seemingly avoided to answer that question.

In the first part I asked if you agreed an object in motion leaves an immediate past position to which you agreed yes. In the second part I asked if you could measure time elapsed greater than 0 at any rate without it becoming an immediate past?

I even went to the trouble of explaining in scenario using a mirror.

Could you please answer the question, I believe the answer to this shows why SR is incorrect. The point being time can be measured at any rate but it will not affect the rate of time.

All observers have the same problem, none of them can measure time past 0 at any rate that changes the fact that anything greater than 0 becomes immediate history/past.

Re: Time is constant ?

Handmade, your question is extremely ill defined and have no yes/no answer. In any case, a scientific forum is not a court room where you can ask leading questions and demand a yes/no answer.

Further, it is pretty clear where your leading questions are leading. It looks like an effort to disprove SR, by bringing in some vague notion of Planck time. To which all I can say is good luck! Everything that you seem to struggle with, have already been solved and then some.

In this forum, any private theory that you propose must in any case recover 'prior art' (all verified observations) and then propose some test with a prediction from your theory that is different from the predictions of currently established theories. Are you up to that?

If not, this forum may not be for you. If so, please proceed with proposing your theory, but then please stick to the above guidelines.